@MattBruenig@BrandonMagner@TheStalwart@DKThomp@BigMeanInternet@jdcmedlock Tens of thousands of other creatives worked just as hard as Lucas (and Swift). Just that their work didn't "catch fire". "No one knows anything."
Luck is unearned. Amazon thrived as pets-dot-com failed. Roll life's dice again? Same number of billionares. Different names.
@mattyglesias After generations of violence, both sides of this conflict have lost whatever belief they once had in the humanity of the other. They will keep killing until one side is exterminated. Or they're both out of weapons.
Deeply tragic.
@cremieuxrecueil Also suggests that the genetic markers we associate with smoking today are not causal? Rather, the genetic markers code for another behavioral outcome. Addiction? I can see why negative selection pressure on addiction (pre nicotine) would "bleed over" into contemporary genetics.
@Noahpinion No, Noah.
You will be talking to something trained towards the goal of maximizing your engagement with it. That's how the firm hosting it generates income.
@mattyglesias MA highly educated, very liberal town enjoyer chiming in ...
Harris was running against Trump. Who was loathed.
Warren ran against John Deaton, an anti-Trump centrist Republican. MA routinely elects moderate Republicans as Governor (15 years since 2000).
@MattBruenig@mark_elevate@Noahpinion I mean. The problem (to me) isn't deciding between risks. It's the way that having more capital means you can take more risks, each considered as one action.
So returns to capital aren't linear. The rich get richer, because they begin richer.
Isn't that just Piketty?
@MattBruenig@mark_elevate@Noahpinion Isn't the point that all risk is relative? By taking any action you are taking risk. Doing nothing entails risk.
Saving account is lower risk than mattress money is lower than index fund is lower than starting a business.
But riskier yields more reward.
@Noahpinion 2/2 Taken to its logical extreme this creates the possibility of a collapse in human diversity. Our species will end up like over-bred dog varieties, shaped to conform to a single aesthetic rather than broad utility.
The worry is pure science fiction. At the moment.
@Noahpinion 1/2 As I understand things, there's a slippery slope.
Clearly we want to edit genes to treat certain diseases. This seems obvious and beneficial.
But humans have a long history of medicalizing stigmatized physical traits: left-handedness, homosexuality, red hair, dark skin.
@MattBruenig@SarkerNotParker@willmenzies@ModeledBehavior To this po' country mathematician the answer to your question is obvious.
Your (worthy) policy recommendations are part of an established framework for liberal governance.
Regulatory reform, as they point out, is not a part of that framework.
That! And also ... This!
@HeerJeet And the progressive side of politics is completely failing by whining about Biden aparachicks instead of yelling, from every rooftop, "Brown People! People with an accent! You better not be there when they show up for your neighbors. Because they will take you. :